BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

                                                            Dated this the 30^th January 2017

PRESENT

     SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

      SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C. No.112/2014

(Admitted on 22.03.2014)

Mr. Narayana Poojary,

Aged 65 years,

S/o Late Jinnappa Poojary,

R/at Kallaje House,

Kedila Village,

Post: Kedila,

Bantwal Taluk.

                                                     ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri JNP)

VERSUS

The Branch Manager,

M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Thumbe Arcade,

Falnir, Mangalore  575 004.

                                                             …............OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri AKK)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant contends he required value of his policy on 11.03.2013 with surrender value or Rs.1,30,629/ by deducting the service tax but opposite party directly credited Rs.95,901/ to complainant’s Vijaya Bank Account as per letter dated 11.03.2013. The attempt of complainant to get back to opposite party of balance surrender value including by way of legal notice not complied hence the complaint for reliefs claimed.

II.     Opposite party filed written version the insurance policy contains all the terms and conditions which are clearly mentioned the terms and conditions governing the policy between the policy holder and insurance company as approved by IRDA Insurance Company Regulatory and Development Authority. The claim for surrender policy in question at Rs.1,30,629/ is false.  The surrender value is to be paid with terms and conditions of the policy.  The letter issued to the complainant mentions as please note that cut off time for UL  Service request or premium collected to participate in the same Days unitization is 3pm.  Service request received or the premium collected after 3 pm will be utilized to next business day.  The actual amount payable is subject to change as per the NAV of the applicable unitization date. The letter was issued in terms and conditions of the policy.   The complaint is abuse in the process of law.  Opposite party is entitled for compensation under 26 of Consumer Protection Act.   Hence seeks dismissal.

2.     In support of the above complainant Mr. Narayana Poojary filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Pramod Alva (RW1) Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?.
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

     The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments.   We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:

                           Point No.  (i): Affirmative

                           Point No.  (ii): Partly Affirmative

                           Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):  The complainant the policy holder the opposite party the company issued the policy to complainant and as such the relationship between them as consumer and service provider is admitted.  The complainant’s claim for surrender value as mentioned in the complaint was disputed by opposite party.  Hence there is dispute between parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS NO (ii):  In this case the copy of the Life Insurance Policy issued to complainant is produced as seen from the affidavit evidence answer to interrogatories of opposite party question no.5 the complainant admits that the life insurance policy purchased by him it  is unit linked, he also admits he had also mentioned the date of maturity of the policy is 28.3.2017 and he surrendered the policy prematurely on 11.3.2013, he also admits the opposite party had credited in all Rs.1,12,324/ of which Rs.16,243 came to his notice subsequent to opposite party filing written version. 

2.     Thus it is clear even according to complainant what he is entitled is only the surrender value and the opposite party claimed that the surrender value is to be determined in case of the surrender intimation receive is beyond 3pm on the next date of the intimation of the surrender.   This is clear from condition no.39 (c) of the policy of course the time mentioned at c of surrender is beyond 4:15 pm NAV of the next is considered.  Clause 39 (c) of the policy conditions reads thus:

39. Change in Rate of Charges:

c) The company reserves the right to revise the miscellaneous charge given in Section 37) h) up to maximum of Rs.200 per transaction with prior approval from the IRDA

3.    As seen from the copy of intimation given by opposite party produced by complainant of the intimation given to complainant dated 11.3.2013 the document is marked at Ex.C1 mentions the amount payable as Rs.1,32,042.16/. The document reads:

                 DATE: 11.3.2013

To,

Narayana Poojary,

3/99, KALLAJE HOUSE,

KEDILA POST VILLAGE, KEDILA

BANTWAL

D.K.

KARNATAKA

574220.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject: SURRENDER Policy Number  0043943598

We would like to inform you that Policy Service Request for SURRENDER on the above Policy has been registered by us on 11-MAR-13 11:03:59 AM

The Service Request No. is PS04969818

4.     Thus on going through the Ex.C1 it is clear the amount due to complainant is mentioned the surrender value as at Rs. 1,30,629/. There is no reason mentioned by opposite party on what basis it considers amount mentioned as shown at Ex.C1 is not a correct surrender value and some  lesser amount is payable to complainant.  When no explanation is tendered on the count the claim of the opposite party that has discharged completely on payment of the amount Rs.95,901 plus Rs.16,423 totaling of Rs.1,12,324 amounts to complete discharge of liability is false.  There is no reason mentioned by opposite party in respect of this document produced by the complainant.   Opposite party has also not produced any document as to on what basis it arrived at the surrender value as mentioned in the complaint.  Hence in view of the admitted Ex.C1 referred earlier the complainant established deficiency in service as pleaded.  Hence we answer Point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

5. The amount payable is Rs.1,30,629/ minus Rs.1,12,324 = Rs.18305/ amount due to complainant is Rs.18305/; towards mental agony and hardship and loss amount of Rs.15,000/  will meet the ends of the justice.

POINTS No. (iii):  Wherefore the following order

ORDER

     The complaint is partly allowed with costs.   Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.18,305/ (Rupees Eighteen thousand Three hundred Five only)  to complainant with future interest at 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  Opposite party shall also pay Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation including cost.  Advocate fee fixed at Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only).  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the copy of this order.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

  (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)         (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum            D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore             Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Narayana Poojary

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Xerox copy of the Bill

Ex.C2: O.C of layers notices (2 in nos.)

Ex.C3: Postal Acknowledgement (2 in nos.)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1  Mr. Pramod Alva, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

Dated: 30.01.2017                                              PRESIDENT